Deepak Prasad v. State Of Chhattisgarh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Writ Petition (S) No. 1366 of 2018 Deepak Prasad S/o Krishna Prasad, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Village Kalikapur, Janpad Panchayat Ramchandrapur, Police Station Ramchandrapur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner

Versus

1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Panchayat And Rural Development, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2. The District Collector, The Collector's Office Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh

3. The Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat Ramchandarpur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh

4. The Superintendent Of Police Anti Corruption Bureau Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

5. Pahluram Kushwaha S/o Dashram, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Sarna (Nouli) Post Raghunath Nagar, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

6. Harishchand Prasad Gautam S/o Shri Ram Prasad, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Raghunathnagar, Tahsil Wadrafnagar, P.S. Raghunathnagar, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh

7. Lal Bahadur S/o Late Munnalal, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Village Sarna, P.S. Raghunathnagar, Tahsil Wardranagar, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh

8. Tarkeshwar Yadav S/o Ram Vilas, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Village Rampur, P.S. Chalgali, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh

9. Baldeo Das, S/o Shri Manglu Das, aged about 41 years, R/o Village Manpur Tahsil Wadrafnagar, P.S. Raghunathnagar, District Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 10.Ram Kumar Yadav S/o Laxmi Narayan Yadav, Aged About 52 Years, R/o Virendranagar, P.S. Virendranagar, Tehsil Wadrafnagar, District Balrampur Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh 11.Mahendra Kumar Yadav S/o Jagdev Ram, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Village Vinayakpur, Post Manoharpur, District Balrampur Ramanujganj,

Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner :

Mr. Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate.

For Respondent / State :

Mr. Dilman Rathi Minj, Dy. Govt. Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Order On Board 12/02/18 1.

Grievance of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Shikshakarmi vide Annexure P/1 (filed collectively) along with number of other persons including those whose names find place in the document Annexure P/4.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after about 11⁄2 years of service, the petitioner's service was terminated by an oral order along with other persons. Some of the persons filed writ petition before this Court and thereafter, their representations were considered and they have been given appointment vide order dated 13.07.2017 (Annexure P-4). He submits that purpose of filing this petition would be served if, at this stage, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to file representation before respondent No. 3 for similar relief. However, he prays for direction to respondent No. 3 to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of order dated 13.07.2017 passed in favour of other similarly situated persons. He further submits that some time limit may also be fixed for respondent No. 3 to pass order.

3. State counsel has no objection if any such direction is issued to respondent No. 3. He, however, submits that the petitioner's case would be

considered strictly in accordance with law subject to their suitability.

4. In view of above, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw this petition with the aforesaid liberty. In the eventuality of filing fresh representation along with copy of this order by the petitioner before respondent No. 3 within three weeks from today, it is expected from respondent No. 3 to pass appropriate orders in accordance with law keeping in view the order dated 13.07.2017 (Annexure P/4) as expeditiously as possible preferably within four months from the date of receipt of such representation.

5. Nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion of this Court on merits of the case and the competent authority shall be at liberty to decide representation of the petitioner in accordance with law. Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge Priyanka